“HAVERING PLANNING SHAKE-UP: ‘LOCAL COUNCILLORS WILL HAVE LESS SAY’ WARNS CRANHAM COUNCILLOR”

25th September 202625th September 2026 Francesca Lilleystone 0 Comments HARA, Planning Changes, Politics min read

As major changes to the planning system are set to come into effect from the end of October, Cllr John Tyler, Cranham Ward councillor and a member of Havering’s Strategic Planning Committee, sets out his concerns about what the changes could mean for local decision-making, councillors and residents.

Planning for the Future?

I have had involvement with the planning system for over twenty years, firstly in my work for a non-statutory consultee and later as an elected Ward Councillor for Cranham. I currently sit as the only Residents’ Association representative on Havering’s Strategic Planning Committee. During this time, I have seen successive governments attempt (and largely fail) to find ways of accelerating homebuilding in England, the latest of which is about to take effect.

In mid August the Government announced its new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which, at the end of October, brings major changes to how the Planning system works on a local level.

Driven by the Government’s desire to build 1.5 million new homes during their current term of office, and closely linked with the new Draft London Plan, the changes are designed to accelerate the process of going from planning application submission to development completion.

As well as encouraging development within 800m of well-connected train stations, setting minimum density levels, and removing the need for exceptional circumstances to be demonstrated to justify altering Green Belt boundaries in such areas, the changes that come in from the end of October mean that, at a local level, elected councillors will have many of their powers to prevent planning applications that they consider unsuitable, removed or reduced.

For smaller planning applications (now called Schedule 1 applications), such as household extensions, small numbers of new homes or small commercial sites, ward councillors will still be able to submit comments (either in support or opposition) but will no longer be able to ask for them to be ‘called in’ to be heard by a planning committee. Instead, such applications will automatically be delegated for a direct decision by officers from the Local Planning Authority. It should be noted that members of the public will still be able to send in comments, it is only the decision making process that is changing.

Schedule 2 applications (which include 10+ homes or 1000+ square meters of commercial space among the definitions), will have a presumption that they will also be decided by direct decision unless at least one of certain stated criteria apply.

Ward councillors will have the ability to call in applications for consideration for referral to the Planning Committee, but they will only actually go before the Committee if a nominated officer (normally the Chief Planning Officer or his/her delegate) and a nominated councillor (normally the Chair of the Planning Committee) agree that the new legal criteria are met.

Crucially, if they cannot agree, it is the nominated Planning Authority Officer who has the final decision.

So what will be the practical effect in Havering? Firstly, the two existing Planning Committees (one for big applications, the other for smaller ones), will cease to exist at the end of October and be replaced by a single Planning Committee (which will have five members in our case). Far fewer applications will go before that committee, and those that do will almost always be significant ones.

As a Ward Councillor, for the smaller Schedule 1 applications, I feel uneasy that there will be occasions when an application meets the on paper legal criteria for granting planning permission, but in reality is not suitable. Whereas, until now, I could explain my reasons to the Planning Officer and if that did not work, do the same to the Planning Committee, I will have lost this ‘second bite of the cherry.’

For the larger Schedule 2 applications, I would hope that common sense prevails, and that the vast majority of larger applications will still go before the new Planning Committee, but I will be holding my breath until I see that happening in reality. If that doesn’t happen, I can see there being significant anger amongst members of the public, who would perceive the decision making process to have been removed from public scrutiny and instead made behind closed doors.

Going back to the whole reason for the Government bringing in these changes, why have they done this?

In the early days of their term in office, they announced a headline target of building 1.5m homes in five years, without acknowledging (realising?) that it would be simply impossible to deliver. Instead, they have chosen to put much of the blame on the planning system and, in response, are now introducing significant restrictions on the ability of local people, through their elected ward councillors and local planning committees, to influence what is and isn’t built in their areas.

But will it work? As someone who has been involved in the planning system for over two decades, I have my doubts.

If you put aside the arguments that are intrinsically linked with the question of whether we actually need or can accommodate 1.5m extra homes, such as immigration, hospital and GP places, lack of affordable housing for our younger adults, and the question of whether parts of our Green Belt should now be seen as grey, and simply look at the ability to deliver such a vast program of building, the planning system is but one part of the issue.

Labour costs and supply of skilled workers are the first significant hurdle. We haven’t trained enough tradesmen for several decades. Consequently, out labour costs are high, as skilled workers are, understandably, able to command high wages.

Land supply is another question. Many within the planning system point out that there are already large brownfield sites that have been sitting unused for years. Anyone who has taken a trip on the District Line in the last few years will have noticed a large open piece of land next to Plaistow Station, the site of a former car showroom, just sitting waiting for development. Plans were put forward at least a decade ago, to turn this site into flats but still nothing happens. Instead, developers are increasingly targetting Green Belt land, which is cheap to buy and cheap to develop but often results in significant objections from local people.

Successive governments have failed to ‘bite the bullet’ on some of our most pressing national issues. The current one has shown a desire to do so with regard to building homes but in doing so, we, as local people, are bearing the brunt and will now have less control over where new homes and factories are built, their size and their design.

Henry Ford was famously quoted as saying that “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black.” No matter what national politicians say about devolution and giving control back to local people, the reality is that they don’t actually seem to be able to release their grip and trust us with our own destinies. In this case, our current Government has chosen to try to hide the impossibility of their building ambitions, and instead made it harder for local people to influence the future development of their towns and cities (and countryside).

Cllr John Tyler

Upminster and Cranham Residents’ Association – Cranham Ward

Member of the Havering Aligned Residents’ Associations (HARA) Group on Havering Council

Stay up to date with all of our latest updates and content by following us on our social media accounts!